Facts
The child survivor was a married girl aged 16 years and was raped by the accused while she was washing clothes near her hut. The accused was charged under Section 376 IPC. The medical records corroborated factum of rape. The trial court convicted the accused but the same was appealed to the High Court. Although it was proved that the accused subjected the survivor to sexual intercourse, the High Court acquitted him on the grounds that (i) the child survivor could have been a consenting party as the accused had no injuries (ii) there was a delay in lodging the FIR, and (iii) a witness who had survivor had disclosed the abuse to was not one examined. The state appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held and emphasised that convictions can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor unless there are material grounds to seek corroboration. In cases where corroboration is needed, the court may search for evidence which can be either direct or circumstantial. The court reiterated a well-settled principle that a survivor who has been subjected to rape should be treated as a survivor and not as an abettor. Additionally, the court found that the child survivor was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination and there was no reason to suspect the witnesses or her family members of falsely implicating the accused of rape. The court further emphasised that the lack of injuries on the accused does not indicate that the survivor consented or failed to resist the assault. Therefore, the absence of injuries does not absolve the accused of guilt. Based on the above reasoning, the court convicted the accused under section 376 IPC.